#57: Seeking Council feedback/input on draft third party software policy
Reporter: pfrields | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Resolution:
Keywords: workstation |
Comment (by uraeus):
Replying to [comment:37 cwickert]:
Sorry for joining the discussion so late. Overall I'm happy with
read, most importantly that people brought up the same concerns I share.
I'm +1 on the first part of the statement that was already ratified in
comment:34 and I definitely want opt-in.
I don't care much how 'explicit' the graphical presentation of the opt-
in is, this is up to the
UI designers. Including non-free apps may be suggested (e.g.
results were excluded from
your search. Click here to show them"'') but not
recommended. A simple
confirmation of a default > is not enough, I want the user
to actively do
it. And we need a "More Info" link that explains
the background, e.g. why we believe in FLOSS.
I can't help but feel that most of this discussion is done thinking of
generic searches. I mean this kind of hiding can sorta work if people
search for a term like 'games', but if a user searches for 'Steam' then
hiding the search results like this comes of as annoying and stupid.
What I want most of all is that FLOSS is preferred over non-free
software. Searching for Chrome
should return "Chromium" before "Chrome" if
Again I wonder if this is one of those things that works as a specific
example, but quickly falls down in the general case. As mentioned just
above, if we are talking a general search term like 'web browser' than
sorting free first seems not unreasonable. And to some degree if people
search for Chrome then prioritizing Chromium could maybe be justified
although I am already feeling we are close to being annoying with such a
move. And it also feels very Chrome specific, as the number of 'non-free'
applications with a open source twin is a very small club. And of course
returning for instance Web or Firefox on a 'Chrome' search is without a
doubt crossing the line from trying to gently push people in the right
direction to just being obnoxious.
This being said I'm happy with
> "The Council recognizes that allowing selected third-party non-free
software to be installed is a valid experiment in advancing Fedora's
mission. Non-free software may not be presented to the user without
explicit user enablement in any Fedora Edition or Spin."
but I think we need one more sentence for the issues mattdm raised in
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57#comment:39>
Fedora Council Public Tickets